Two of the fun people we met at ICCF18 were both named Paul Breed. They are dynamic father/son duo that like to make cool things like rockets happen when they aren't at their main jobs. Lately they have taken a liking to LENR. You can see their interesting test cells described amidst the cool rocket blog here: Unreasonable Rocket
 |
<---------Rocket Science (and both Paul Breeds)
Not Rocket Science----> (but just as cool!) |
 |
Over dinner, Paul (pictured above) started rattling off a bunch of things he would do if he was asked to do a validation test. It was very timely because of the Defkalion live video demo that had happened that day, not to mention the Rossi validation that was published a couple months ago. So, I asked him for some notes on his thoughts. What I got is an awesome start for putting together the ultimate test protocol for a black box LENR type device. Please help us make this document complete and articulate.
My hope is that if we are asked to do a validation of a device without being able to see inside the device everyone including the inventor, our team, and the general public will know what to expect and be able to trust the results. Furthermore, I hope this helps to set the bar for anyone doing a validation test or public demo.
Please help us refine this into a comprehensive, well articulated document. You can review it here and make suggestions in the comments below, or request to get editing access to the original document. (This document is also posted under the Collaborate menu)
Comments
the time.
Feell free to surf to my web-site - cheap & secure vpn, Stephany: maps.google.no/,
in google, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for; Boorfe's tips unlimited content
In the end, the prime motivation of the MFMP is to make this technology happen, to enable it to benefit the biosphere and its flora and fauna. Either by unquestionable demonstration or by forcing players to accelerate development, thereby encouraging investors to invest in promising routes to realisation.
To keep people on their toes, we will work with the freely available science, develop our own collective understanding and work with anyone that is willing to do so openly, to develop tools, software, calorimeters and reference reactors/techno logy that can all be used to further the field and develop practical applications.
There is a precedent in the open source software community around patents. In real time Linux there are two main players; RTLinux and RTAI. Both started with very similar ideas on how to modify the Linux kernel to introduce hard real time capabilities. The RTLinux group decided to patent their technology but allow free licences for their patent to all open source implementations and applications. On the surface it looked like a logical strategy to prevent others from grabbing the technology. However the real time Linux community didn't trust the RTLinux group's intentions. The crowd migrated to the RTAI project which was patent free.
But any commercial black box with big claims would be better tested by an established independent test lab. That would cost money, but not an unreasonable amount for any company.
So you have to ask why anyone would ask MFMP to black-box test their device? The two high profile contenders (Rossi and DFK) both claim very high COP. That can be black-box tested with positive results and absolute certainty by any decent test organisation. The results would be accepted by funding institutions and corporate customers in a way that MFMP's results would not.
The reason for asking MFMP to black box test would be to gain credibility for a system with a low COP but nevertheless possible excess energy. But that then prejudices MFMP's impartiality because a lot rests on how one set of marginal test results are interpreted.
On the other hand there are many academic studies claiming positive results but without credibility outside the LENR community. Investigating such claims is exactly what MFMP can do, and in the process help others with viable test protocols, problems found, etc.
LENR has needed what MFMP provide for a long time. Primarily it is patience. Patience with unclear results and time to investigate things fully and get clear results.
LENR+ is the opposite of this - a mad dash for high apparent COP with no sure way to know whether what is being optimised is experimental error or LENR energy.
I don't see the pure testing of private IP, such as black-box reactor technology evaluation, as something that should be funded by public charity money. Using the Celani wires, as is occurring now, is a reasonable compromise that is in fact enablin g most of the activities the MFMP is currently undertaking. In particular, the "white-box" nature of Francesco Celani's generous offering differentiates this particular use of IP from most other uses.
If private entities wish to fund evaluations of privately-held technologies, and there are MFMP-related resources (people and time) available and interested in conducting the evaluation without harming the primary public-interest science & technology development mission, then that would seem acceptable to me, even if this is not an ideal use of private resources.
Since there are so many co-operating entities coming forward to work with the MFMP project, we are looking to enable many individual groups to be involved with an MFMP "federation" in disparate activities, as determined by their skills, resources and interests. Activities which are funded with public charity money will need to be structured and supervised to ensure their appropriateness to the organization's public-charity science mission; privately-funde d activities could range further afield of this strict public-interest demarcation necessitated by any use of charity funding. An MFMP "umbrella" of networked organizations and activities then serves to disseminate and discuss these various findings using Live Open Science protocols.
Whilst there is some significant weight to your argument, we have always been technology agnostic. Celani has a patent pending on his wire preparation and the others you mention have always been on the list of candidates for incontrovertibl y proving the New Fire from day one. Whilst we want and intend to clean room a reference open core technology for others to freely build on, our stated aims are:
1. Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire
2. Once shown, help develop peoples understanding of what the New Fire is
3. Help promote the development and uptake of the New Fire in all its various guises
So what to do... We have always said we don't care if we show the world first or we encourage others to accelerate their research to the same end. Once step one is done, the world will be a much better place as the fog of dogma will have cleared and all the various researchers should benefit from a wall of investment.
We would of course demand that the tests follow LOS, but, just like with Celani's wire, we would have to stop short of specifically detailing how to make the active component.
It is about pragmatism. We have never signed a NDA with Celani, nor would we, this would be the aim in all tests. Effectively Celani's wire is the "black box" and he even lets us SEM and EDX it. Frankly, if third parties had patent application or precedent, then we could in theory reveal what they reveal to us as they would have priority. An example of this is Mitchel Schwartz who is considering letting us test in a LOS way his organisations last generation Nanor - but we don't and wont make any. High power is where it might be best for open source development.
If those commercial enties want to do private R&D that is their privilege. If they are willing to play by the LOS rules, then by all means we should welcome them and their technology to the pool. Otherwise we should go our separate ways. The fact that they are even talking about black box demos proves that they need us much more than we need them.
A large flow should be warranted in order to avoid phase change as much as possible.
External devices (ie HV spark generator) might be used for excess heat generation. While, depending on device efficiency, only some of the overall energy consumed might actually get into the reactor (and contribute to the rise in internal temperatures for calorimetric calculations) this doesn't change the fact that wasted/unused electrical power at the power supply still has to get into account for overall efficiency calculations (COP).
RSS feed for comments to this post